Attorney General Mulilo Kabesha says Zambia’s investigative wings are under no obligation to disclose the nature of security threats that led to the recent three-day closure of courts, pushing back against calls from the Law Association of Zambia for greater transparency around the disruption. The closure, which affected access to justice for several days this […]
Attorney General Mulilo Kabesha says Zambia’s investigative wings are under no obligation to disclose the nature of security threats that led to the recent three-day closure of courts, pushing back against calls from the Law Association of Zambia for greater transparency around the disruption.
The closure, which affected access to justice for several days this week, has drawn criticism from lawyers and civil society groups who argue that litigants with time-sensitive matters, including election petitions, may have been disadvantaged by the shutdown.
Kabesha said lawyers already understood how to handle matters scheduled for hearing on days when courts were closed, and rejected suggestions that anyone had lost out as a result.
“If there are some matters which should have come during that period, the courts will do what they think is best. But not everyone has lost. Everyone knows we had issues of Covid,” Kabesha said.
He drew a direct comparison to the pandemic-era disruptions of 2020 and 2021, when courts across the country similarly closed for extended periods.
“What happened when matters were scheduled to be heard during Covid-19? Did people get disadvantaged? No. Matters were not struck out by Covid-19,” he said.
The Attorney General was responding to concerns raised by the Law Association of Zambia, known as LAZ, which had urged the Judiciary to issue clear directions on how applications affected by the closure would be treated. LAZ argued that simply reopening the courts did not resolve the underlying disruption to access to justice.
Kabesha, however, insisted that revealing the specific nature of the security threats that triggered the closure would itself compromise national security.
“When there’s a security issue raised, you minimise even discussing it. It’s only the investigative agencies that will know more about what security threats are talking about. And they are not supposed to reveal the security concerns which they have exposed,” he said.
The closure of courts earlier this month sparked debate among lawyers and civil society, with some questioning the lack of transparency around the security concerns cited. The Judiciary has yet to issue formal guidance on how pending matters affected by the disruption will be handled.
The timing of the closure has drawn particular scrutiny because it coincided with the fourteen-day window during which parliamentary and presidential election petitions must be filed following the August general election. Several petitioners, including former Transport and Logistics minister Frank Tayali and UPND candidate Sibeso Sefulo, have since lodged challenges in the High Court over the conduct of the polls in their respective constituencies.
LAZ has not withdrawn its call for the Judiciary to clarify how affected applications will now proceed. Legal practitioners contacted separately said uncertainty over deadlines remained a live concern for litigants whose matters fell within the closure window.
Kabesha’s remarks mark the first detailed government response to the controversy since the courts reopened. He maintained that the decision to close the courts had been necessary and that the public should trust the judgment of investigative agencies without demanding operational details.
The Attorney General’s office has not indicated whether any further statement will be made on the specific nature of the threats, and Kabesha gave no timeline for when, if ever, such information might be disclosed.
For now, the matter remains a point of friction between the executive and the legal profession, even as the country moves toward Tuesday’s presidential inauguration under heightened security.
Follow the story
